18 Comments:

If we really wanted to, and had the support of government, we could likely get close. But Nuclear has to be on the table to accomplish it. No way can we depend on solar (daytime only) and wind (when the wind blows) for our base load capacity,or even peaking capacity.

Why would we need nuclear when the existing coal and NG can be utilized to balance the RE generation. Nuclear is slow and expensive, not to mention high risk. I would rather not give Iran (or any other nation) an excuse to expand their nuclear resources.

I'm glad to see such an ambitious goal being promoted. Even if we get half the results in twice the time it would be a great achievement.

Attainable? Maybe not, but we should certainly try regardless. I see the threat of doing nothing as a whole lot worse than falling a bit short of that goal. So what if we can only hit the 50% mark? In the long run it'll lower prices, create jobs, help the balance of trade, and be a whole lot better for the climate.

That said, I think people are under-estimating the threat of climate change. If the tundra/permafrost melts in the artic circle, it will release long frozing gases, more than doubling the existing CO2 in the atmosphere. When this has happened previously on the planet it has coincided with mass extinctions. Not something I want to see in my lifetime.

Whatever we do or can do we need to start now! If for no other reason than to put our unemployed to work. I think Solar and Wind power are excellent stop-gap methods and possibly generate hydrogen with any surplus generation which could be released either via fuel cell or combusted to drive turbines or Stirling engine generators... But we need to start NOW. We may have another 1,000 years petroleum or even more. I don't know and the people who do won't tell the truth.

After listening for 27 minutes and 18 seconds for any mention to the other half of the equation, that of controlling demand, and not hearing, I can do nothing else but put this whole scheme in the "Pipe Dream, Fairy Tale" category and move on.

There is no way that any solution can work as long as it continues to chase an ever receding goalpost. Americans must first understand, and accept, that they are THE MOST WASTEFUL nation on Earth by a factor of from 2 to 20 times that of other nations.The immorality of such selfishness is a crime against humanity and it will be footnoted in History as a Red mark against the nation that had the best potential but threw it away because of a lack of discipline and moral backbone.

Demand should be reduced first. Conservation is one thing we can do now, do easily, do cheaply, and with existing technology. If we reduce demand by 10%, that will mean a large number of power plants can be idled.I like the receding goalpost analogy....seems that like some of our presidential candidates, we are born into priviledge and are making the least of it....meaning we just sit and watch the goal post move away from us. We can't get there if we don't get up and move.

There is no need to use dangerous, polluting nuclear plants when thermal solar plants work so well as an alternative, producing power 24/7 from stored solar heat. Why spend any more money on nukes when we know that they are expensive, create targets for terrorist attacks, and take years to build. There is enough wind in the Dakotas and sun in the southwest to power our national grid. Oil man T. Boone Pickins is right, solar and wind are the way to go. Plus these technologies scale up to meet demand.

You state that nuclear is dangerous and polluting. Got any proof of that? Your opinion flies in the face of people who KNOW about nuclear. Perhaps you know something about "storage" that the rest of the world doesn't. The fact is, wind and solar depend on the wind blowing and the sun shining all the time, and they do not....

The challenge to become energy independent is not only a national security issue, but also an economic security issue of monumental proportions. Like any other economic activity, the fundamentals of supply and demand apply here. After the oil shock of 1970s, and early 80s (which were driven not by a supply and demand factor, but by geopolitical pressures) there was a period when oil fell to $12 a barrel levels. I don’t remember anyone complaining about the low price of oil then. That was right after solar energy was introduced as a potential alternative to fossil fuels, and as a way to eliminate oil dependency … drunk on $12 a barrel oil, politicians fell asleep at the wheel. People forgot how painful an energy crisis could become. However, this time around the shock is not artificial, nor is it geopolitical. The proof to that is that oil prices are steadily above $100 for the past six months, despite strong political pressure to lower them. It’s economics stupid!

Blaming the OPEC policies, and the oilmen, or politicians is not solving the problem. We can not turn back the clock, but we can take serious steps towards employing promising, plentiful, and clean energy sources such as Solar and Wind. No, we don’t need the government to tell us how to do it. And yes, we need government incentives for as long as needed to get us past this development stage. View the role of the government in energy independence as a provider of the materials to build a bridge. We don’t expect the government to build the bridge, and we don’t ask them to provide more material than what’s needed to build that bridge. But we need reliable, steady and high quality material that we can count on to build a solid bridge to energy independence. That means congress needs to pass an energy bill that extends tax credits for wind and solar ASAP. They also need to extend the credits not on an annual basis but provide confidence by extending it for 10 years, or more. Congress can add provisions to the bill to create an annual analysis to review the bill and readjust the incentives (only downwards and effective 6 months after approval to provide time for markets to adjust) to ensure efficient implementation of the plan. So stop stalling, and act as if the future of this country, and possibly the world depends on it … it probably does!Sam ManafiSolastix, Inc.

History reminds us that every time oil prices peak and the North American market/consumers start to discuss alternative energy sources, the oil exporting countries start to trim down their prices. History also tells us that the oil exporting nations have been very successful in the past and in fact, we have lost our enthusiasm and dropped many of our alternative energy initiatives after oil prices are reduced.

WE need to stay focused this time.

1) Al Gore and his energy initiative is on course.2) T. Boone Pickens and his wind power initiative is on course.3) BG Automotive Group’s mass production electric vehicle program is on course.4) Richard Branson from the UK is on course.5) The Gas Reduction Act of 2008 might not be the most environmentally sound solution, but yet it shows that Congress has finally realized that we have an energy crisis (again), and a real threat to our national security.

The continued dependence on foreign oil is a threat to our long term democratic values. We must become an energy independent nation, and with this, some sacrifices will have to be made by the American consumer.

Be aware!!We are exporting approximately USD $700 Billion dollars per year of U.S. currency. The majority of this money is being transferred to the Trillion dollar “sovereign wealth funds”. This is USD $700 Billion not being spent on America’s educational system, health care and security.

The “sovereign wealth funds” are directly buying major interests (large blocks of stock) in U.S. companies, including most of the major banks. Also, billions of dollars of “sovereign wealth fund” money is being invested in our hedge funds, private equity firms, and the investment banking industry. A few of these firms are directly and indirectly investing large sums of money into our “gas combustion” automobile industry. Do we want our auto industry in the direct or indirect control of the firms that are supplying us oil? This is an interesting topic for an investigative reporter.

There are automotive consulting companies in Michigan (heart of our auto industry), lobbying States and our Federal Government, NOT to subsidize the Electric Vehicle industry. The latter seems to be contradictory to what the American public would like to see from our automobile industry. After the billions (excess of $20 billion) the automotive companies have lost in the past 6 months producing gas combustion vehicles, you would think they too would change course. Changing course is not adding 2-4 miles per gallon w/Hybrids. Drastic measures in our auto industry must take place and NOW!

Do not let the temporary reduction in oil prices push us off course….AGAIN.

Read, Read, Read- Stay on top of the issues. Let’s not be fooled again.

We truly need to become energy independent and stop wasting time on this small "band-aids" that will not solve the whole problem.

We should completely forget about using oil as fuel, and boost electricty production. If nearly every home owner could conserve energy and produce some of their own electricity then we might not need nuclear. The first things that need to change are the attitudes of the people and the government.

As great as this idea is and as great as the Pickens Plan or Solar Grand Plans are there is a better plan. Alternative energy like solar and wind belong to everyone. Sustainable energy should not be traded and sold back to consumers. Sustainable energy belongs to the people all people. People need to invest themselves in there own energy future and not let corporations serve it to them. I propose the Peoples Energy Plan where we all invest ourselves in sustainable energy and reap its benefits for free.www.FliteRecord.com

One of the greenest choices we could make is "new generation" Nuclear Power plants. Future MSR Nuclear Plants will be safer than walking into a hospital. But I agree with T. Boone, we need it all. Let's get off oil first, then coal. And it will not take 10 years. I have two things in common with T. Boone, I am an Oil trader/investor and I am investing in alternative energy. We may not be able to drill our way out of this but we can sure invest our way out of it. Get on board!

I agree that nuclear is a bad idea, and also that it is probably a bad idea to count on the sun shining and the wind blowing all day everyday, but we know the horrible effects, costs and time scale of nuclear. We are smart enough to come up with a way to conserve energy from really sunny or really windy days, or an alternative to this altogether that doesn't involve nuclear. As much as no one understands that nuclear can be something safe and are scared of it's effects, I also don't think anyone understands how harmful it can be either. Not to mention, we don't need something that costs so much when we have so much debt to pay back already.

It's good to see that people are starting to realize that we have a problem with our energy resources, but it is definitely ridiculous the way we live. People waste energy on so many things that just don't need it, day after day. Preaching to people that don't listen isn't going to change anything, they need to be inforced. We need to start to get more and more people thinking, working and worrying about this problem.

Bill55AZ says....anyone preferring coal to nuclear knows next to nothing about either.I have worked at nuclear facilities all my adult life. There has never been a death due to radiation at a commercial nuclear plant. Coal plants discharge more radioactive waste out of the smoke stacks than you will get downwind of a nuclar plant, not to mention all the non-nuke pollutants. Nukes do not pollute, dirt burners do, that is a fact. BUT, both are for producing electricity, and electricity is not our problem. OIL is the problem. We need to at least stop buying oil from our enemies. If we can't produce enough of our own oil to stop buying from the middle east, we need to start walking, riding bikes, etc.